Talk:Prince George of Wales/GA2

GA Review

Abandoned - MSincccc (talk) 08:55, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Nominator: MSincccc (talk · contribs)

Reviewer: AndrewPeterT (talk · contribs) 04:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opening comments

Please note that it is bedtime where I reside, and I will leave detailed comments as soon as I can tomorrow (March 27).

In the interest of full disclosure, I have left detailed feedback to improve content on the article's talk page on one occasion (but have not been involved with this article otherwise). If this counts as a "significant contribution" per WP:GAN/I#R2, please let me know and I will recuse immediately.

For now, I will end with this remark: Wow. In my 10 years on Wikipedia and being personally interested in the House of Windsor, I never would have guessed that one day, I would be scrutinizing the article on a future British king for its GA merits! And as a registered user, there was no way I was going to pass this opportunity to be part of Wikipedia, if not worldwide, history!

However, if permitted, I will definitely commit to objectively reviewing Prince George's article against the six criteria. Because I know that many people are going to consult his article in the years to come, I genuinely want to make my contribution here as productive as possible. AndrewPeterT (talk) (contribs) 04:39, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT All I hope for is that it is passed as GA as soon as possible in an accurate manner. Regards MSincccc (talk) 04:54, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Both: a bit of discussion on the talk page does not constitute "significant" editing per the GAN criteria, i.e. this is a drive-by nomination. It can either be quick-failed or you can simply CSD this page so that it is deleted, and remove the nomination from the talk page, it doesn't matter much. For the record, it appears that MSincccc has recently conducted multiple drive-by nominations; I've pointed out the policy to him on his talk page re another article. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:32, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am the fifth largest author and also made 68 edits, the 7th-most to the article. I know that the Sherlock Holmes one could have been considered a drive-by but obviously not this one @Chiswick Chap. Editors @Keivan.f and @Tim O'Doherty will tell you more. I do satisfy all the criteria as I am among the top five authors. Regards MSincccc (talk) 15:21, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT I hope to receive comments from you soon. I have admitted to a drive-by nomination for the article Sherlock Holmes given my authorship of that article was largely due to running of a bot. However, I have significantly contributed to George's article and am presently one of the top 10 editors as well as one of the top five authors to the page. Further, I have also consulted other editors on the issue. I hope you understand. Regards MSincccc (talk) 05:19, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@AndrewPeterT The drive-by charges were in relation to my GA nomination for Sherlock Holmes not this article. Hence please go forward with this review. I have spoken to the others in this concern. Looking forward to your comments. Regards and yours faithfully, MSincccc (talk) 11:48, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.